Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

One individual that is a prominent fixture in American culture went against the popular grain and made a profound difference. But you need to understand the setting to fully appreciate what he did and why it's relevant today.

Occasionally angry crowds assembled. Anger escalated and many started arriving armed, some with rifles, most with pistols. Frequently alcohol was involved and ignorant, uninformed comments boiled the blood of those present. Instead of allowing civility to rule, instead of discussions on differences of opinion, the yelling and shouts of a few attempted to end any chance of real discussions. It wasn't long before the anger couldn't be contained and violence frequently erupted, as if this was a civilized method of resolving differences.

The pattern became established, entrenched as the norm, and concerned, rational citizens realized a change had to occur. They made the decision to bring in an outsider to try to calm the anger, turn back the flood of agitators and manipulators. They found their person, and Wyatt Earp was brought to Dodge City, Kansas. One of the first acts initiated by Wyatt Earp was to erect a sign on the outskirts of town. "Check Your Guns Here!" Even an individual closely associated with guns, like Wyatt Earp, recognized that there was a time and place for guns, and more importantly a time and place for no guns.

The rule was implemented. The rule was enforced. The government, which Wyatt Earp represented, didn't "take away guns", didn't take away the "right to bear arms", they just established, since the ignorant couldn't figure it out themselves, there there were places where it was inappropriate.

It worked. Dodge City became tamed. Residents and visitors still had the right to "bear arms", they were just prohibited from using them and displaying them in inappropriate places. The few, and minority, had to conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to the majority. No doubt Wyatt Earp was directly challenged on his policy, but reason prevailed, and when that wasn't enough he enforced the policy with other methods. The taming of the west was underway.

It's doubtful that the term "bleeding heart liberal" was even in existence during that era, but if it had been, Wyatt Earp, an American icon, a bold, fearless lawman of legendary status, would have been labeled a "bleeding heart liberal" by the equivalent of today's society on the opposite view of that issue. He would have earned that brand because he opposed irresponsible acts and he enforced logic and reason, because he considered the safety of the many was more important than the attempts at intimidation by the few.

Had that term "bleeding heart liberal" been in existence, and if it would be possible to transport back into time the group of gun packing screamers showing up at today's town hall meetings, it's quite unlikely that any of them would have the courage to walk up to Wyatt Earp and say it to his face. Their contemporary banty rooster courage would immediately evaporate, and there's little doubt their weaponry would already be secured at the "Check Your Guns Here!" station on the outskirts of town.

But here we are in 2009 and we have individuals that oppose actual discussions. They opposed civility and manners. They endorse intimidation by brandishing weapons at inappropriate places. They want a return to the pre-Wyatt Earp, Dodge City mindset. They have no regard for the safety of others, or the concept of democracy. They want only their voices heard, and they're bringing loaded weapons to let us know what might be next.

They're so uncomfortable living in today's society, they outwardly display their mid-1800's view of how they'd like us to think and live. They're so afraid of life they're only able to venture out when carrying firearms, which gives them a false sense of security, empowerment and courage. They fail to comprehend history's lessons, that when outrageous behavior reaches a certain level, there's always a Wyatt Earp that surfaces. It's a natural order of checks and balances, and history shows this to be an inevitable force.

So these fearful, yelling people can now be informed that in addition to all their imaginary little fears, there's a new one for them to be concerned about. It's coming. It's coming for them. History guarantees it. A Wyatt Earp is on the way and he knows who you are and looks forward to meeting you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

When Wyatt Earp was in charge of this small town, the federal government had no say or jurisdiction. States were the highest law in the land, so there was little to fear from Washington, especially that far west.

The area that was a no gun zone was just the city proper. You wouldn't even break a sweat walking from one end of town to the other. This would be similar to suggesting that there be no fire arms brought into a mall.

Now for my question - Do you own a firearm or have you ever? If you do, why do you own one?

I suspect Greco would never own a firearm. If a situation arose, he would sit there dumbfounded and expect the government to save him. When they didn't, he would blame it on a dead, religious, Republican from the past.

I'm a former Drill Sergeant and 1Sgt in the U.S. Army. I've tought weapons training. I currently own several firearms... a pistol (but I'm not so afraid I need a concealed carry permit to take it with me), a rifle and a shotgun. I own the rifle and shotgun because I used to hunt. Can't handle all the rugged terrain anymore, so now they just remain in the closet. I own the pistol because several times a year I enjoy visiting a local firing range and shooting it.

My point is quite simple. There are places where firearms are appropriate, and places where they aren't. Many of the ultra-pro gun crowd have no distinctions. They seem to believe they need a weapon everywhere they go, and no place in inappropriate. The more they overstep their rights, making a grand public display of their firepower, the more likely the pendelum will swing the other way. The average citizen doesn't want to go to a public event and be surrounded by loaded assault rifles and pistols. Maybe they're "rational" people with 'em, but bringing them to town hall meetings doesn't seem too rational, but it just seeing someone walking around with one makes you take notice.

I'm a former Drill Sergeant and 1Sgt in the U.S. Army. I've tought weapons training. I currently own several firearms... a pistol (but I'm not so afraid I need a concealed carry permit to take it with me), a rifle and a shotgun. I own the rifle and shotgun because I used to hunt. Can't handle all the rugged terrain anymore, so now they just remain in the closet. I own the pistol because several times a year I enjoy visiting a local firing range and shooting it.

My point is quite simple. There are places where firearms are appropriate, and places where they aren't. Many of the ultra-pro gun crowd have no distinctions. They seem to believe they need a weapon everywhere they go, and no place in inappropriate. The more they overstep their rights, making a grand public display of their firepower, the more likely the pendelum will swing the other way. The average citizen doesn't want to go to a public event and be surrounded by loaded assault rifles and pistols. Maybe they're "rational" people with 'em, but bringing them to town hall meetings doesn't seem too rational, but it just seeing someone walking around with one makes you take notice.

Click to expand...

you mean you dont think I should walk around the Mall with my ak-74 around my shoulder...?

Greco Said: So these fearful, yelling people can now be informed that in addition to all their imaginary little fears, there's a new one for them to be concerned about. It's coming. It's coming for them. History guarantees it. A Wyatt Earp is on the way and he knows who you are and looks forward to meeting you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Click to expand...

It is always the way of 'lessor thinking humans'; if my yelling won't get your attention then my {not so subtle} wearing the fire arm out in the open should draw your attention!!! Then it just keeps getting ramped up from there: if my wearing the fire arm out in plain view doesn't get your attention, then my firing it off up into the air should get your attention; and then it all just escalates into chaos and someone gets hurt/wounded/shoot & DEAD!
HAVE THEY MADE THEIR POINT, DO WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM

TheFranklin Said: The area that was a no gun zone was just the city proper. You wouldn't even break a sweat walking from one end of town to the other.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you've never been to Kansas and you've certainly never been to Kansas when it's hot...you'll break a sweat just standing still and you don't have to walk anywhere to do that!

I'm a former Drill Sergeant and 1Sgt in the U.S. Army. I've tought weapons training. I currently own several firearms... a pistol (but I'm not so afraid I need a concealed carry permit to take it with me), a rifle and a shotgun. I own the rifle and shotgun because I used to hunt. Can't handle all the rugged terrain anymore, so now they just remain in the closet. I own the pistol because several times a year I enjoy visiting a local firing range and shooting it.

My point is quite simple. There are places where firearms are appropriate, and places where they aren't. Many of the ultra-pro gun crowd have no distinctions. They seem to believe they need a weapon everywhere they go, and no place in inappropriate. The more they overstep their rights, making a grand public display of their firepower, the more likely the pendelum will swing the other way. The average citizen doesn't want to go to a public event and be surrounded by loaded assault rifles and pistols. Maybe they're "rational" people with 'em, but bringing them to town hall meetings doesn't seem too rational, but it just seeing someone walking around with one makes you take notice.

Click to expand...

I agree with your premise that open carry can be unsettling and I have never been a proponent. Concealed carry is a bit of a different issue. Many major cities prohibit carrying at all, but the threat of muggings and assaults is very real. Although you or I, because of our training, may not fear for ourselves, there are many people who would not be physically able to defend themselves. I think it is the right of every citizen to defend themselves, so how do we allow citizens to defend themselves if we take one of the only real deterrents away?

On the outlandish display of open carry at the town halls and other rally's - I have a Concealed Carry Permit and it is very clear on what that allows me to do and not do. The first thing is that it is a concealed permit. That means, if I brandish, or even accidental display my weapon in public I can be arrested. There are only a few counties in the country that allow open carry. So, my question is, "How did these people get by the local police without being handcuffed and thrown in the back of a squad car? You are right that this will work against the practical and reasonable desire to protect and defend yourself.

The difference between the apparent success of making Dodge City safe with a sign that says "No Guns" and the modern situation is that all the people obeyed the sign in Dodge City and the citizens were then safer. Now, the gangs, criminals, crazies ignore the mandate and citizens are not rendered safer by anti-gun legislation or posted signs.

But, I am willing to be convinced. Answer please: (1) How many shootings took place the year leading up to the posting forbidding the carrying of guns? (2) How many shootings took place after the forbidding of carrying of guns? And, (3) How many people continued to carry guns in a concealed manner after the ordinance was posted? If you cannot answer these questions, you are making an assumption as to benefit from some "gun free zone" philosophy. How well has making schools (collages), "gun free zones", worked out?

The difference between the apparent success of making Dodge City safe with a sign that says "No Guns" and the modern situation is that all the people obeyed the sign in Dodge City and the citizens were then safer. Now, the gangs, criminals ignore the mandate and citizens are not rendered safer by anti-gun legislation or posted signs.

Click to expand...

Well said - if you can't keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then how can you suggest law abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves.

"Well said - if you can't keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then how can you suggest law abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves."

Kind of a really dumb argument. You might want to think about how absurd it is.

We're discussing a town hall meeting with President of the United States. Do you honestly think "bad guys" are going to coming flocking to that event in such numbers you must pack heat? When the President appears there are increased law enforcement and Secret Service present. But you still think you might be in such danger from "bad guys" you need your pistol or semi-automatic rifle with you, locked and loaded?

"Well said - if you can't keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then how can you suggest law abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves."

We're discussing a town hall meeting with President of the United States.

Click to expand...

No, your original post was about Wyatt Earp and the Dodge City ordinance about carrying guns. Now, if you want to make a point about people not carrying concealed handguns to President Obama's town hall meetings, go ahead and make a post, I am all ears.

When Wyatt Earp was in charge of this small town, the federal government had no say or jurisdiction. States were the highest law in the land, so there was little to fear from Washington, especially that far west.

The area that was a no gun zone was just the city proper. You wouldn't even break a sweat walking from one end of town to the other. This would be similar to suggesting that there be no fire arms brought into a mall.

Now for my question - Do you own a firearm or have you ever? If you do, why do you own one?

Click to expand...

There were actually US Marshal back then as well.

Even after the creation of more than 50 specialized federal law enforcement agencies during the 20th century, the Marshals retained the broadest jurisdiction and authority. For over 200 years now, U.S. Marshals and their Deputies have served as the instruments of civil authority used by all three branches of government. Marshals have been involved in most of the major historical episodes in America's past.

The point Greco was making and making correctly is that there have been many actual cases over the years where guns were not allowed in town and it almost completely ended the gun violence in those towns.

Same thing with outlawing fully automatic weapons. That cut down to almost nothing the tommy gun killings that were very prevalent before the ban.

And before you ask... I've owned a ton of guns including a Thompson semi-auto, M1 Carbine and AR15. And still today own 2 handguns a Beretta model 70s .380 and a Dan Wesson pistol pack .357 magnum.

"Well said - if you can't keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys then how can you suggest law abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves."

Kind of a really dumb argument. You might want to think about how absurd it is.

We're discussing a town hall meeting with President of the United States. Do you honestly think "bad guys" are going to coming flocking to that event in such numbers you must pack heat? When the President appears there are increased law enforcement and Secret Service present. But you still think you might be in such danger from "bad guys" you need your pistol or semi-automatic rifle with you, locked and loaded?

Click to expand...

That whole they need a gun to protect themselves at Presidential events is a big Red Herring.

They're trying to make a broader point that they can own & carry a gun. The problem lies in just what you said. It gives cover of normalcy to any nutjob that wants to get a weapon close to our President.

The rational thing to do is widen the no gun zone around any Presidential or Congressional event. I mean it's not like they can carry them into the building anyway. The Secret Service would put them so far under the jail they'd have to pump sunshine into them if they tried that.

The solution is to just push the guns a little further away from the elected officials. Widen the no gun zone perimeter to say a half mile circle around the event.